 |
Designing Commercial Kitchens With Input From Operators And Concept Developers - By Michael Beam and Juliette Boone |
|
Involving operators, chefs and concept developers in the kitchen design process can lower operational labor cost, increase menu flexibility, minimize equipment change costs and improve employee satisfaction. |
When functioning at its best, the process of designing commercial kitchens requires the involvement of many professionals to help insure a successful design outcome. These professionals typically consist of architects, various consultants, designers, concept developers, operators and chefs. Unfortunately, in our experience, operators, chefs and concept developers are often are left out of the design process. The negative consequences of these critical omissions can include: higher labor costs, menu inflexibility, costly equipment layout changes and lower employee satisfaction. These negative factors often permeate the restaurant for the life of its business.
To illustrate the above point, we would like to share an example of where lack of operator, chef and concept developer input had a cascading negative effect on a restaurant's ability to operate successfully. In this particular case, our firm was engaged to perform an analysis of the restaurant's kitchen to identify opportunities for increasing operational efficiency. During our analysis, we learned that the kitchen's 'generic' design was a major impediment to its efficient operation. By 'generic,' we mean that the design had been created with very little regard to overall concept, menu, operational processes, style of service, and staffing. Of the many operational inefficiencies resulting from the initial concept design, we will elaborate upon three specific examples below:
• Inadequate freezer storage for the wide variety of frozen desserts, including gelato, ices, and fruit purees, at this Italian-themed concept required the purchase of a separate top-load freezer. However, the kitchen's cold prep area could not accommodate the new freezer, which had to be placed in an entirely different area of the kitchen. This set up required staff to run constantly between the cold prep area and the top load freezer, resulting in reduced efficiency, slower ticket times and lower employee satisfaction.
• Inadequate broiler capacity made it challenging for the culinary team to efficiently produce the high volume of steaks in demand at this restaurant. Consequently, the original broiler had to be replaced with a higher capacity model, which also necessitated rearranging of the remaining cooking line equipment to accommodate the new broiler.
• Inappropriate oven type (conveyor versus deck oven) made it difficult for the chef to produce the thin-crust pizzas and flatbreads specified on the restaurant's menu. The oven had to be replaced at significant cost to the operation.
You might infer from the above example that we support designing a kitchen to fit a specific concept without considering flexibility. However, that is not the case as we have also observed situations where specific designs did not support operational efficiency. The following example illustrates our point. A client purchased a hotel and commissioned a kitchen study to determine if the current layout and equipment could support the anticipated new concept. The kitchen was so highly specialized to accommodate the previous concept, it would have required significant investment to convert the layout such that it would be appropriate for the new concept. While a new layout was required, we note that all equipment necessary for the new concept was available in the existing configuration. The client decided to not re-configure the space and 'make due' with what he had (island stations versus in-line). While the client saved money in up-front capital expenditures, he paid the price of unnecessarily high ongoing staffing costs. The island station set-up forced the chef to schedule an additional staff member for most shifts in order to handle breakfast and dinner business volumes. Specifically, labor cost increased by approximately $773 per week (46 hours per week, $14 per hour, 20% benefits) or $40,196 annually. Beyond the tangible increase in hourly staffing costs, this design inefficiency contributed to increased ticket times and staff dissatisfaction, two negative consequences not easily quantifiable. The example above illustrates the pitfalls of designing a kitchen so specific to a restaurant that it is not useable in support of another concept. In other words, a well-designed kitchen must be able to adequately handle the concept intended for its design, but must also have the flexibility to adapt and change as customer preferences and menus evolve over time.
We have shared the examples above to illustrate the importance of including operators, chefs and concept developers in the commercial kitchen design process. When all of these significant contributors are involved, the ultimate design will incorporate specific equipment needs, reflect menu requirements, build in operational efficiencies and minimize opportunities for staff dissatisfaction. No kitchen is going to be perfect, nor will it necessarily be able to support differing concepts as a restaurant space evolves over time. However, with the help of operators, chefs and concept developers in the design process, you will minimize your risk over time.
For more information, contact:
Michael Beam
Managing Director
HVS Food & Beverage Services
372 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY 11501
Phone: (516) 248-8828 x280
Fax: (516) 742-1905
Juliette Boone
Principal
HVS Food & Beverage Services
2229 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
Phone: (303) 301-1130
Fax: (303) 443-4186
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Post Release
Get Content
Email News Brief
Saved Articles
Advertising
Handheld
XML/RSS
PDF this article
Post News